Granted, I'm not a Constitutional scholar like our President who wipes
his well-toned ass with it every day of the year. But I've been
rereading the 14th Amendment these days, the one the Obama
administration has been loathe to invoke to avoid the debt ceiling
implosion brought to a short fuse by the Teabagger Republicans.
The 14th Amendment,
to put in a nutshell, was ratified by Congress on July 9, 1868 as an
aid to Reconstruction. It was bitterly contested by the southern states
because they had to adopt it in order to be recognized in the Congress.
It was primarily a civil rights amendment, among other things but it
also contains other goodies.
With the Civil War still very
much in mind, the 4th section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states
that Congress can't blow off the national debt and that it should be
taken seriously. Of course, when the 14th Amendment was ratified over
145 years ago, there was no such thing as a debt ceiling but we can be
sure the Congress that had contentiously ratified it meant all national
debt, and that very much includes the latter-day debt ceiling.
I can understand both sides that say the President should or should not
invoke the 4th section of the 14th Amendment. After all, it states in
its entirety,

The validity of the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment
of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor
any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Note
that nowhere does it state it is the President's duty, obligation or
even prerogative to unilaterally invoke it in the interests of national
solvency. President Obama knows this, no doubt, which is why both he and
the Justice Department are reluctant at best to use Section 4 before
the debt ceiling crisis explodes on October 17th. Supporters of the
President refusing to use Section 4 say the President cannot invoke it
prior to the national debt coming due but nowhere does it say he cannot
invoke it before.
As with Lincoln and the 13th
amendment of 1865, he knew the Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime
act only and that, after the Civil War, the Supreme Court would have it
for breakfast (hence the more permanent and unconditional 13th
Amendment). Obama is obviously afraid if he invokes the 4th Section of
the 14th, someone (Most likely some bomb-throwing Tea Bagger) will
challenge it and the SCOTUS will overturn it. And technically violating
the Constitution to promote the general welfare (as specified in the
Constitution's Preamble) will give those same bomb-throwing anarchist
teabagger House Republicans grounds to draft articles of impeachment against
Obama.
However, I think Obama should invoke it anyway just to
avoid the debt ceiling collapse and us running afoul of our creditors
and having our bond and credit rating downgraded for the first time
ever. He can sort it all out later.
But I'm not here to talk
about Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. No, no, no, Constant Reader. I'm
here to talk about the much more important and just as seldom litigated
and challenged 3rd section. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment explicitly
states in whole,

No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President,
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under
any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any
State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to
the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each
House, remove such disability.

Invoking that
would essentially wipe out the Teabagger caucus overnight, wouldn't you
say? It also would've prevented Sarah Palin from running for Vice
President because she and her husband Todd were buddy-buddy with a right
wing secessionist group in Alaska (their membership lapsed right after
Sister Sarah became McCain's nominee).
So, instead of voting
and trusting that heavily gerrymandered districts won't be as bad as
we've been led to believe, why don't we kick them out of Congress by
invoking the 3rd Section of the 14th Amendment for their Teabagger
activities before, during and after leaving public office?

Certainly has some nice ways around the teabaggers. Can't say they are doing the U.S.A. any good. More like trying to bring down the pres. and they've been trying to do that since the first day he was in office.

From up over the 49th par., it would be a sitcom, if it weren't so serious. The teabaggers simply don't make sense. They certainly don't care about anything, except their own agenda and they haven't articulated what that is. Could it be some of those white boys simply don't want a person of colour to be the President of the U.S.A.?

Some rights of this page's plain text stuffs are reserved for the author.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors of said opinions, and do not in any way represent the opinions of other contributors.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.